About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
, which france says it would back. eu foreign ministers have been talking about the conflict, agreeing that african troops should take over from the french asap. >> here's more on the story beginning with germany's involvement. >> german aircraft could soon be used to support french intervention in mali, providing mid-air refueling to french planes as they go to combat zones. the proposed increase in german military involvement has been welcomed by lawmakers from the governing coalition. >> it is about making more support available to our french partners. to help make sure that mali does not turn into a breeding ground for international terrorists. >> germany has already provided two military transport planes to help transport african union troops with a third ready if needed, but further help will require approval from parliament. the green party do not see it as a simple yes vote. >> the crucial thing about this military involvement is that it must lead to a political process because the military cannot solve the problem. >> parliament must also approve a planned eu training mission
. bulgaria is now going to the eu to try to get at least some tougher sanctions on hezbollah through iran because of attempt -- they attempted to kill the ambassador in. >> if the president means what he has said repeatedly and clearly, nuclear iran means war with the united states. the president has said that he does not endorse containment of iran. they will not have, he said, nuclear weapons. if theys can cross that threshold, there must be some red line somewhere that means war with iran. >> there are other options to war. >> the worst possible scenario would be a nuclear-armed iran, think that has to be stopped. >> which the president has pledged to do. >> what he has. i think we need to work in consultation with our european allies to make sure that that doesn't happen. they have been bad players straight-on. they're not negotiating in my opinion in good faith. i think we have to understand that. >> the real question is, what to do? we can talk about this until we're blue in the face. the most painful sanctions imposed on iran are under way right now. they're not affecting their des
as a terrorist organization. the second thing, in 2006 you were one of 12 senators who refused to position the e.u. to identify hezbollah as a terrorist group. third, in november of twee, you failed to -- 2003, you failed to vote on a syrian accountability act with sanctions -- occupation of lebanon. four, in 2001, you were one of only two senators that year to vote against renewal of the iran-libya sanctions act. and lastly, in 2001, you were one of four senators who refused to sign the letter supporting israel. are those accurate? >> well, let's start with the -- >> no. i just want to know if the statement -- these are votes that took place. do you agree those votes took place? >> i want to ask the letter that you just noted in your fifth point, what was the date in the letter? >> the date. >> you said i refused to sign letter. >> october of 2001. >> a letter to -- >> ok. skip that one. is the other ones true? >> well, it was fairly important -- >> it's very important. i was holding the letter at the time that we were gathering signatures. >> i see. on the 2008 question regarding designating the
to the e.u. asking hezbollah to be designated a terrorist organization, being one of 22 to vote to designate the iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization, being one of two on two occasions to vote against sanctions that this body was trying to impose on iran, the statements you made about palestinians and about the jewish lobby, all that together. that the image you created is one of sending the worst possible signal to our enemies and friends at one of the most critical times in world history? >> no, i would not agree with that. because i have taken actions and made statements very clear as to what i believe hezbollah and hamas are as a terrorist organizations. >> if you had a chance tomorrow, today, after lunch, to vote to say that the iranian revolutionary guard was a terrorist organization. would you still vote no? >> the reason i voted no to start with... >> well i know why, you told me that. my question is would you reconsider and would you vote yes this time? or would you still vote no? >> times change. i recognize that and, yes, i would reconsider. >> well, t
refused to position the e.u. to identify hezbollah as a terrorist group. third, in november of twee, you failed to -- 2003, you failed to vote on a syrian accountability act with sanctions -- occupation of lebanon. four, in 2001, you were one of only two senators that year to vote against renewal of the iran-libya sanctions act. and lastly, in 2001, you were one of four senators who refused to sign the letter supporting israel. are those accurate? >> well, let's start with the -- >> no. i just want to know if the statement -- these are votes that took place. do you agree those votes took place? >> i want to ask the letter that you just noted in your fifth point, what was the date in the letter? >> the date. >> you said i refused to sign letter. >> october of 2001. >> a letter to -- >> ok. skip that one. is the other ones true? >> well, it was fairly important -- >> it's very important. i was holding the letter at the time that we were gathering signatures. >> i see. on the 2008 question regarding designating the revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization, i did vote against it. >> i
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)